Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers
from the minority-report dept
Ah, pre-crime. THREsq has a worrisome story of a couple of recent lawsuits by concert producers pre-suing potential bootleggers claiming trademark infringement. Yes, they're claiming trademark infringement for something that hasn't happened yet, and simply listing out hundreds of John Doe and Jane Does who can later be filled in. As a part of this, they're getting law enforcement involved by using the lawsuit to ask the court to order US Marshalls, local and state police and even off-duty officers to go ahead and seize and impound the bootlegged material.It's really quite something to read the lawsuit which refers to possible events happening in the future:
The threat of bootleggers is real, of course, but it's based purely on speculation, without evidence of the kind of past specific misconduct that might trigger temporary remedies as seen in criminal proceedings. That seems odd, and perhaps a slippery slope. Why can't any company in America file John Doe trademark action and get police to seize goods they believe will be infringing? What stops this beyond the concert venue?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bootlegging, concerts, pre-suing, trademark
Companies: aeg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanctions?
But I'm sure there are some DA's who would like to get in on this pre-crime thing and have some Grand Juries pre-indite John Does for a raft of crimes that the DA expects will happen. It is sooo much more efficient than charging actual people for things they are alleged to have actually done. And with that kind of efficiency, I'm sure the trains will all run on time, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If this were the plot of a movie...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the law allows no rememdy, why is this lawsuit allowed? They even admit it in their document! Its incalulable because it hasn't happened yet!
I'm going to file a lawsuit against the guy down the road, because I expect him to rob my house and use his car as a getaway vehicle. Therefore I get his car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thoughtcrime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
may be next time they'll just arrest a bunch of people, directly instead of filing a case. and it does me remind of what the nazi's did in ww2
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the words of George Carlin,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In the words of George Carlin,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someone should contest it
Can someone go to court and claim to represent John & Jane Doe or XYZ Company? You could point out that your clients have done nothing wrong and the plaintiff is wasting the court's valuable time and demand that the case be dismissed (and of course, that they pay for your legal fee).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow..
Serves them right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
The time police arrest one of their own conspirators for crimes he is "going" to commit.
LOL! hilf*ckinlarious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"no remedy at law" is just legalese for "we are asking for non-money relief." It means they're asking for "equitable" remedies. "Law" and "equity" are formerly distinct concepts which are now merged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is very common...and has been for a decades
Surprised that the "Hollywood Reporter" would regard this as news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what concert we'll spread the news
sorry EPIC DUMB
stupid knows better
and i honestly think aliens have taken over lawyering cause not anyone in there right mind would try this crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is very common...and has been for a decades
We, looky here. Murder has been committed for as long as we have been able to keep history, as well as rape. Obviously, since it has been done for a very long time by a lot of people, then both these should be legal, right?
No? well, foot, meet mouth. I am sure you will get along smashingly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
need details on the festival itself
time to teach morons a lesson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil Jackson tactics?
Sad to see corporate lawyers abusing our legal system in the same fashion. In this case, you know that the event organizers, with the help of local LEOs, will bust someone selling crappy $5 t-shirts. Maybe they should just sell some crappy $5 shirts instead. There is obviously a market for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@10 you might also
OMG this is funny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good thing....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Love the signature
Perhaps the submitter knows its a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
Then you're using the wrong filing cabinets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, officer, I'll be guilty of that pre-crime, but it's okay, I've also been pre-convicted, and pre-pardoned...
While this type of thing may not be uncommon, it's a fantastic example of how absurd our copyright/trademark laws and practices are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
____/s Cara R. Burns
CARA R. BURNS
Hicks, Mims, Kaplan & Burns
3250 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 350,
Santa Monica, California 90405
Tel: (310) 314-1721/ Fax: (310) 314-1725
Email:cburns@hmkblawyers.com/ Atty for Plaintiff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Preemptive injunction against this concert
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting precedent...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First...
Hicks, Mims, Kaplan & Burns
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Presecution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
If you actually worked in the industry (Mike has never had an industry job), you'd know this happens at every venue larger than a dive bar, and how much of an issue it is.
Mike's lack of logic is even funnier in this particular instance, because Mike is all about selling tangibles, and here these guys are protecting their right to sell tangibles, but Masnick's gone apeshit again. Typical tabloid writer. Yes, I fed the troll. I'm out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
Let's see how much we can bend the law such that it serves our purpose and meets our demands because we deserve preferential treatment.
Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion - but do not expect others to swallow that crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Double Jeopardy?
I don't know much about law but if I'm correct, they're screwing themselves over before the crimes even occur, leaving them no way to collect damages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thoughtcrime
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
BTW, It doesn't matter that it's common. It's sorta sleazy, wouldn't you say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
1) law says you can prevent people from selling with your brand
2) brand owner files before a court saying "i'm going to enforce the law at my venue"
3) government attends enforcement to verify that brand owner's actions conform to law
Under your laughable interpretation, you're looking at:
1) law says you can prevent people from selling with your brand
2) brand owner invests a ton of money into brand
3) someone else uses brand (unlawfully)
4) brand owner has to sit there and watch others infringe at a venue
5) brand owner files suit
6) infringer doesn't show up in court and has no attachable assets
7) law exists, but is unenforceable
Where's the due process in that? Do you even know what due process is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Service of Legal Papers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
That's no excuse for removing due process.
The only real remedy that the rights holders typically get from these are seizing (and destroying) the fake gear on the spot.
How is that a remedy? And how is that reasonable when the holder of the seized goods has no legal recourse? There's simply no due process at all.
If we're going to have trademark law, but then make enforcement impossible, we might as well not run this facade that we actually have trademark law.
There are perfectly legitimate ways to enforce trademark law that include due process.
And it's one thing to argue non-commercial infringement, but these guys are selling gear, hocking it under someone else's brand. That's not kosher.
Then sue them after they violate the law.
Mike's lack of logic is even funnier in this particular instance, because Mike is all about selling tangibles
Huh. That's news to me. I'm actually not about selling tangibles. I tend to think that's not a very good business model in many cases.
You seem to be confusing scarcities with tangibles. Odd, but for someone who's going to attack me for supposedly not knowing what he's talking about, it helps to not get wrong what you think I'm about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
fwiw ... IP may be important or not, that is a different topic. What is being dicussed is the abuse of the judicial system. One who does not see this as an abuse might try to explain their position in a reasonable manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In law there are two types of remedy: (1)at law, which usually refers to money damages, and (2) at equity which usually tries to force someone to do something, prevents someone from doing something, or seeks something else that is not quantifiable in money damages. That is the case here.
They are simply saying "we cannot put a price tag on the damages so we are suing at equity asking that you seize any material that fits the description of this suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Been waiting so long to use this lyric
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is very common...and has been for a decades
The purpose is to seize the goods of a person who may or may not do something against the law in the future. Now can you defend it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
Here's how.
1) law says you can prevent people from selling with your brand
2) brand owner files before a court saying "i'm going to enforce the law at my venue"
3) government attends enforcement to verify that brand owner's actions conform to law
4) Law enforecement officers confiscate property at the behest of a private third party, without the property, its owner, or any related activity being examined by a judge.
Did you spot it? If the lawsuit is filed before the allegedly infringing activity takes place, then any warrant or order issued beforehand cannot possibly take the facts of the case into account. Property is being confiscated by the government at the say-so of a private individual or corporation. If that isn't the absence of due process, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wait. What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"XYZ" is a real company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZnetworks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
As for the holder of the seized goods claiming their due process was violated, the only gear that's been seized is the fakes. No one in the history of concerts has even remotely alleged they were selling legit gear and it was seized. No one. The armchair activists on this blog are literally the only people who are complaining. The people who doing the infringing know it's against the law. That's why they don't show up after the fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
If this is really the case, then 1) it seems like they're getting busted for not having a permit, not for selling counterfeit goods and 2) why is a lawsuit necessary? Couldn't they just contact the police department and ask them to please come enforce permitting laws at the venue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Incoming Reality Check, Look Out Below!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]